Results for “software verification” — Page 61

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-571: Objective Assessment of 3D Dosimetry for Flattened and Flattened Filter Free Stereotactic Rotational Delivery Using 729-Array Detector with Octavius 4D Phantom

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential of 3D dosimetry for flattened and flattened filter free stereotactic rotational delivery in high definition MLC using 729-detector array with Octavius 4D phantom Methods: Twenty rapid arc plans were assessed for this study. For each patient two plans for 6X and 6FFF photon beams were generated with same prescription and critical organ constraints in Eclipse TPS version 13.0 using high definition MLC. Verification plans were generated in scanned Octavius 4D phantom in TPS. 3D dose measurements were collected from 729-ion chamber detector array in Octavius 4D phantom using verisoft software v 6.0. TPS calculated dose was compared with measured 3D dose in verisoft using the following gamma analysis parameters such as 3D volumetric, 3D planar and 2D global gamma in transverse, sagittal and coronal planes for 3mm/3% and 2mm/2% distance to agreement criteria.Passing rate and arithmetic mean of global gamma were analysed for 2D and 3D global gamma in all planes. Results: The average number of dose points passing rate for 2D global gamma with 3mm/3% criteria in transverse, sagittal and coronal planes was 99.06%±2.89%, 98.8%±0.88% and 99.06%±91%, respectively. For 2mm/2% criteria 97.86%±2.26%, 94.49± 2.64% and 94.34%±2.9% was observed. In 3D planar global gamma with 3mm/3% was 99.53%±0.49%, 98.93%±1.03% and 99.29%±1.29%, for 2mm 2% criteria was 97.50%±2.24%, 94.5%±2.5% and 95.38%±4.5%. The maximum arithmetic mean gamma deviation of 0.505%±0.13% was observed in coronal plane for 2D global gamma with 2mm/2% criteria. The 3D volumetric gamma passing rate was observed as 99.61%±0.433% for 3mm /3% and 95.91%±2.51% for 2mm/2%. Conclusion: The objective assessment of 3D dosimetry have demonstrated that the rotational delivery accuracy for flattened and flattened filter free stereotactic plans can be verified by using Octavius system comprising with 729 ion chamber array and Octavius 4D phantom.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

Analyses of Field Test Data at the Atucha-1 Spent Fuel Pools

A field test was conducted at the Atucha-1 spent nuclear fuel pools to validate a software package for gross defect detection that is used in conjunction with the inspection tool, Spent Fuel Neutron Counter (SFNC). A set of measurements was taken with the SFNC and the software predictions were compared with these data and analyzed. The data spanned a wide range of cooling times and a set of burnup levels leading to count rates from the several hundreds to around twenty per second. The current calibration in the software using linear fitting required the use of multiple calibration factors to cover the entire range of count rates recorded. The solution to this was to use power regression data fitting to normalize the predicted response and derive one calibration factor that can be applied to the entire set of data. The resulting comparisons between the predicted and measured responses were generally good and provided a quantitative method of detecting missing fuel in virtually all situations. Since the current version of the software uses the linear calibration method, it would need to be updated with the new power regression method to make it more user-friendly for real time verification and fieldable for the range of responses that will be encountered.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2025

Code Coverage Status of the ARC Code PERSENT

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. PERSENT fulfills the role of generating reactivity coefficients for a given time point of a REBUS calculation usable in a point kinetics based safety analysis capability. PERSENT also provides a sensitivity coefficient capability on eigenvalue, reactivity worth, and several other key coefficients that are used in the follow-on safety analysis. Given a co-variance matrix, PERSENT can carry out the uncertainty quantification to indicate the amount of error in the reactivity coefficients derived from the errors in the cross section measurements. With continued improvement of computational resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. PERSENT is part of the ARC code system and is built around DIF3D-VARIANT and the flux solution it provides. The purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for PERSENT and assess the code coverage of PERSENT for those test problems. PERSENT treats the DIF3D executable as an external executable and thus the code coverage considerations only need to focus on the PERSENT source code and only a fraction of the connected modules in the existing ARC software library. The goal is to document what parts of the existing PERSENT code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on PERSENT was focused on the most common uses of PERSENT for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that users of PERSENT rely upon. The code coverage analysis of PERSENT was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of PERSENT. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of PERSENT. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored because they are either for error message and debugging output or not needed by PERSENT today. Only a few uncovered parts of PERSENT deserve extending the verification test suite.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1986

Ada(R) Test and Verification System (ATVS)

The Ada Test and Verification System (ATVS) functional description and high level design are completed and summarized. The ATVS will provide a comprehensive set of test and verification capabilities specifically addressing the features of the Ada language, support for embedded system development, distributed environments, and advanced user interface capabilities. Its design emphasis was on effective software development environment integration and flexibility to ensure its long-term use in the Ada software development community.

Strelich, Tom↗

NASA NTRS1990

Next generation VLSI tools

This paper focuses on what features would be useful in VLSI Computer Aided Design Tools and Systems to be used in the next five to ten years. Examples of current design tasks will be used to emphasize the areas where new or expanded VLSI CAD tools are needed. To provide a basis for projecting the future of VLSI tools, a brief history of the evolution of VLSI design software and hardware platforms is presented. The role of design methodology is considered with respect to the anticipated scale of future VLSI design projects. Future requirements of design verification and manufacturing testing are projected based on the challenge of surviving in a competitive market. Examples of VLSI tools reflect the author's involvement on VLSI design teams developing integrated circuits for disk memory and other computer peripherals for the last eight years.

Gibson, J.↗

NASA NTRS2012

HVI Ballistic Performance Characterization of Non-Parallel Walls

The Double-Wall, "Whipple" Shield [1] has been the subject of many hypervelocity impact studies and has proven to be an effective shield system for Micro-Meteoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) impacts for spacecraft. The US modules of the International Space Station (ISS), with their "bumper shields" offset from their pressure holding rear walls provide good examples of effective on-orbit use of the double wall shield. The concentric cylinder shield configuration with its large radius of curvature relative to separation distance is easily and effectively represented for testing and analysis as a system of two parallel plates. The parallel plate double wall configuration has been heavily tested and characterized for shield performance for normal and oblique impacts for the ISS and other programs. The double wall shield and principally similar Stuffed Whipple Shield are very common shield types for MMOD protection. However, in some locations with many spacecraft designs, the rear wall cannot be modeled as being parallel or concentric with the outer bumper wall. As represented in Figure 1, there is an included angle between the two walls. And, with a cylindrical outer wall, the effective included angle constantly changes. This complicates assessment of critical spacecraft components located within outer spacecraft walls when using software tools such as NASA's BumperII. In addition, the validity of the risk assessment comes into question when using the standard double wall shield equations, especially since verification testing of every set of double wall included angles is impossible.

Bohl, William↗

NASA NTRS2012

Airborne Wind Profiling With the Data Acquisition and Processing System for a Pulsed 2-Micron Coherent Doppler Lidar System

A pulsed 2-micron coherent Doppler lidar system at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia flew on the NASA's DC-8 aircraft during the NASA Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) during the summer of 2010. The participation was part of the project Doppler Aerosol Wind Lidar (DAWN) Air. Selected results of airborne wind profiling are presented and compared with the dropsonde data for verification purposes. Panoramic presentations of different wind parameters over a nominal observation time span are also presented for selected GRIP data sets. The realtime data acquisition and analysis software that was employed during the GRIP campaign is introduced with its unique features.

Beyon, Jeffrey Y.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification of a Modeling Toolkit for the Design of Building Electrical Distribution Systems

DC electrical distribution systems offer many potential advantages over their AC counterparts. They can facilitate easier integration with distributed energy resources, improve system energy efficiency by eliminating AC/DC converters at end-use devices (e.g., laptop chargers), and reduce installation material, time, and cost. However, DC electrical distribution systems present additional design considerations, largely resulting from potentially greater magnitude and variation in cable losses. Modeling and simulation are rarely used to design such systems. However, the greater dependency of DC system energy efficiency on design choices such as distribution voltages, architecture, and integration of PV and BESS suggests that modeling and simulation may be required. Such system performance analysis is currently not a standard practice, in part due to limited availability and validation of capable software tools. This paper characterizes the accuracy of a Modelica-based Building Electrical Efficiency Analysis Model (BEEAM) toolkit, as a precursor for validating its use to perform system performance analysis and inform design decisions. The study builds upon previous verification research by characterizing complete systems comprised of commercially available equipment, and providing a more detailed analysis of simulation results. Five lighting systems with varying electrical distribution architectures were designed using market-available equipment, installed in a laboratory environment, modeled using BEEAM, and simulated using three Modelica integrated development environments (IDEs). Simulated and measured results were compared to characterize toolkit accuracy. Initial results revealed that simulated performance was mostly within ±5% of measured system-level and device-level performance. While simulation results were not found to be dependent on the IDE, some Modelica compiler interoperability issues were identified. Although the BEEAM toolkit showed promise for the targeted use case, further work is needed to determine whether the demonstrated 5% accuracy is sufficient for making real-world design decisions, and for BEEAM to advance from an interesting research tool to one that can impact real-world building projects.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

NASA NTRS2015

Physics Simulation Software for Autonomous Propellant Loading and Gas House Autonomous System Monitoring

1. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is developing a mobile launching system with autonomous propellant loading capabilities for liquid-fueled rockets. An autonomous system will be responsible for monitoring and controlling the storage, loading and transferring of cryogenic propellants. The Physics Simulation Software will reproduce the sensor data seen during the delivery of cryogenic fluids including valve positions, pressures, temperatures and flow rates. The simulator will provide insight into the functionality of the propellant systems and demonstrate the effects of potential faults. This will provide verification of the communications protocols and the autonomous system control. 2. The High Pressure Gas Facility (HPGF) stores and distributes hydrogen, nitrogen, helium and high pressure air. The hydrogen and nitrogen are stored in cryogenic liquid state. The cryogenic fluids pose several hazards to operators and the storage and transfer equipment. Constant monitoring of pressures, temperatures and flow rates are required in order to maintain the safety of personnel and equipment during the handling and storage of these commodities. The Gas House Autonomous System Monitoring software will be responsible for constantly observing and recording sensor data, identifying and predicting faults and relaying hazard and operational information to the operators.

Regalado Reyes, Bjorn Constant↗

NASA NTRS2022

Benefits and Challenges of CCSDS File Delivery Protocol as Applied to Europa Clipper

—This paper describes the use of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) on the Europa Clipper mission for both uplink and downlink of files. It includes an overview of CFDP, the history of why CFDP was chosen, how it benefits mission operations, some of the mission scenarios that stress CFDP, operability aspects, the best practices that Clipper adopted from other missions and some of the technical challenges with implementation, and verification and validation. The benefits to mission operations accrue because CFDP reduces the need for manual management of file transfer, including retransmission of missing data, and deletion of files only after confirmation of receipt by the ground. The challenges occur because CFDP is a round-trip protocol – it requires messages in both directions to complete a file transfer, and because it uses timers to ensure that control messages are resent if needed to prevent transactions from going stale. Any situations where communication is restricted to a single direction, interrupted, reordered, or backlogged can pose a challenge. There are also implementation challenges. Europa Clipper is the first mission at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to adopt class 2, fully acknowledged, CFDP for both uplink and downlink. The implementation needed new software, requirements and operational procedures. The experience of the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) with CFDP from their previous missions was crucial to success for Europa Clipper. Because CFDP relies on timers and messages travel in both directions, verification and validation (V&V) requires new approaches. For certain scenarios, a live ground system talking to a live flight system with realistic simulated one-way light times, data rates and data outages must be used.

Albers, Joshua↗

NASA NTRS2016

Transitioning Enhanced Land Surface Initialization and Model Verification Capabilities to the Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD)

Flooding, severe weather, and drought are key forecasting challenges for the Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD), based in Nairobi, Kenya. Atmospheric processes leading to convection, excessive precipitation and/or prolonged drought can be strongly influenced by land cover, vegetation, and soil moisture content, especially during anomalous conditions and dry/wet seasonal transitions. It is thus important to represent accurately land surface state variables (green vegetation fraction, soil moisture, and soil temperature) in Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models. The NASA SERVIR and the Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) programs in Huntsville, AL have established a working partnership with KMD to enhance its regional modeling capabilities. SPoRT and SERVIR are providing experimental land surface initialization datasets and model verification capabilities for capacity building at KMD. To support its forecasting operations, KMD is running experimental configurations of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF; Skamarock et al. 2008) model on a 12-km/4-km nested regional domain over eastern Africa, incorporating the land surface datasets provided by NASA SPoRT and SERVIR. SPoRT, SERVIR, and KMD participated in two training sessions in March 2014 and June 2015 to foster the collaboration and use of unique land surface datasets and model verification capabilities. Enhanced regional modeling capabilities have the potential to improve guidance in support of daily operations and high-impact weather and climate outlooks over Eastern Africa. For enhanced land-surface initialization, the NASA Land Information System (LIS) is run over Eastern Africa at ~3-km resolution, providing real-time land surface initialization data in place of interpolated global model soil moisture and temperature data available at coarser resolutions. Additionally, real-time green vegetation fraction (GVF) composites from the Suomi-NPP VIIRS instrument is being incorporated into the KMD-WRF runs, using the product generated by NOAA/NESDIS. Model verification capabilities are also being transitioned to KMD using NCAR's Model *Corresponding author address: Jonathan Case, ENSCO, Inc., 320 Sparkman Dr., Room 3008, Huntsville, AL, 35805. Email: Jonathan.Case-1@nasa.gov Evaluation Tools (MET; Brown et al. 2009) software in conjunction with a SPoRT-developed scripting package, in order to quantify and compare errors in simulated temperature, moisture and precipitation in the experimental WRF model simulations. This extended abstract and accompanying presentation summarizes the efforts and training done to date to support this unique regional modeling initiative at KMD. To honor the memory of Dr. Peter J. Lamb and his extensive efforts in bolstering weather and climate science and capacity-building in Africa, we offer this contribution to the special Peter J. Lamb symposium. The remainder of this extended abstract is organized as follows. The collaborating international organizations involved in the project are presented in Section 2. Background information on the unique land surface input datasets is presented in Section 3. The hands-on training sessions from March 2014 and June 2015 are described in Section 4. Sample experimental WRF output and verification from the June 2015 training are given in Section 5. A summary is given in Section 6, followed by Acknowledgements and References.

land surface modeling↗

DOE OSTI2025

Kinetic Plasma Simulation Capabilities in the MOOSE Framework: Verification of Particle-Particle Collisions

High-fidelity simulations of complex plasma systems allow researchers to gain key insights into and understanding of these systems. To facilitate massively parallel high-fidelity plasma simulations, finite-element-based particle-in-cell capabilities are being developed within the open-source Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) based framework called Software for Advanced Large-scale Analysis of MAgnetic confinement for Numerical Design, Engineering & Research (SALAMANDER). While SALAMANDER’s primary objective is modeling edge plasmas and plasma-facing components in fusion devices, the particle-in-cell capabilities being developed are general and will support modeling low-temperature plasmas as well. Previously, collisionless magnetostatic simulation capabilities have been verified with the two-stream and Dorey-Guest-Harris instabilities, and single particle motion. Collisions were implemented using the direct simulation Monte Carlo method, and verification of this capability will be presented here several verification problems: relaxation of a randomly initialized gas to a Maxwellian distribution, Fourier heat flow, and comparison of reaction rates to both analytic calculations and those calculated using a multi-term Boltzmann solver.

70 - PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2013

C++ Implementation of IAPWS Water Properties

For the calculations of water-involved systems, such as safety analysis of light water reactors, it is essential to provide accurate water properties. The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam is an international non-profit association of national organizations concerned with the properties of water and steam. It provides internationally accepted formulations of water/steam properties for scientific and industrial applications. The purpose of this work is to provide a stand-alone software package in C++ programming language to provide accurate and efficient water/steam properties evaluation, based on the latest IAPWS releases. The discussion on related IAPWS releases, code implementations and verifications are provided in details.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1992

Model-based software design

Domain-specific knowledge is required to create specifications, generate code, and understand existing systems. Our approach to automating software design is based on instantiating an application domain model with industry-specific knowledge and then using that model to achieve the operational goals of specification elicitation and verification, reverse engineering, and code generation. Although many different specification models can be created from any particular domain model, each specification model is consistent and correct with respect to the domain model.

Iscoe, Neil↗

NASA NTRS1998

An approach to the design and implementation of spacecraft attitude control systems

Over 39 years and a long list of missions, the guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) groups at the Goddard Space Flight Center have gradually developed approaches to the design and implementation of successful spacecraft attitude control systems. With the recent creation of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center at Goddard, there is a desire to document some of these design practices to help to ensure their consistent application in the future. In this paper, we will discuss the beginnings of this effort, drawing primarily on the experience of one of the past attitude control system (ACS) groups at Goddard (what was formerly known as Code 712, the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Branch). We will discuss the analysis and design methods and criteria used, including guidelines for linear and nonlinear analysis, as well as the use of low- and high-fidelity simulation for system design and verification of performance. Descriptions of typical ACS sensor and actuator hardware will be shown, and typical sensor/actuator suites for a variety of mission types detailed. A description of the software and hardware test effort will be given, along with an attempt to make some qualitative estimates on how much effort is involved. The spacecraft and GN&C subsystem review cycles will be discussed, giving an outline of what design reviews are typically held and what information should be presented at each stage. Finally, we will point out some of the lessons learned at Goddard.

ODonnell, James R., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS1998

An Approach to the Design and Implementation of Spacecraft Attitude Control Systems

Over 39 years and a long list of missions, the guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) groups at the Goddard Space Flight Center have gradually developed approaches to the design and implementation of successful spacecraft attitude control systems. With the recent creation of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center at Goddard, there is a desire to document some of these design practices to help to ensure their consistent application in the future. In this paper, we will discuss the beginnings of this effort, drawing primarily on the experience of one of the past attitude control system (ACS) groups at Goddard (what was formerly known as Code 712, the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Branch). We will discuss the analysis and design methods and criteria used, including guidelines for linear and nonlinear analysis, as well as the use of low- and high-fidelity simulation for system design and verification of performance. Descriptions of typical ACS sensor and actuator hardware will be shown, and typical sensor/actuator suites for a variety of mission types detailed. A description of the software and hardware test effort will be given, along with an attempt to make some qualitative estimates on how much effort is involved. The spacecraft and GN&C subsystem review cycles will be discussed, giving an outline of what design reviews are typically held and .what information should be presented at each stage. Finally, we will point out some of the lessons learned at Goddard.

ODonnell, James R., Jr.↗